Talk:Anti-submarine warfare

Weapons

I've updated the list of weapons but it needs more work. It only had naval mines and torpedoes... which is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention

This article needs attention.GraemeLeggett 14:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Anti-Submarine Warfare → Anti-submarine warfare : Syntax. (Not, so far as I'm aware, a proper noun.)

Voting

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

• Support. David Kernow 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (proposer)
• Support for reason explained above Jll 21:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

35,000?

No, 3500. Hz., that is. Changed. rasqual 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On Report

I deleted "The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships." as redundant. I rewrote "The critical Allied advantage was provided by the breaking of German naval codes" to "An important"; the value of Ultra is often overstated.

I rewrote

"shipping from attacks by U.S. and Allied submarines. The primary weapon of attack continued to be the depth charge, dropped from aircraft or deployed by surface ships. Japanese sub detection gear was not as advanced as that of some other nations. The primary Japanese anti-submarine weapon for most of WWII was the depth charge, and Japanese depth charge attacks by its surface forces initially proved fairly unsuccessful against U.S. fleet submarines. Unless caught in shallow water, a U.S. submarine commander could normally dive to escape destruction, sometimes using temperature gradient to escape pursuit. Additionally, during the first part of the war, the Japanese tended to set their depth charges too shallow, unaware U.S. submarines could dive below 150 feet.

"Unfortunately, the deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics were revealed in a June 1943 press conference held by U.S. Congressman Andrew J. May, a member of the House Military Affairs Committee who had visited the Pacific theater and received many confidential intelligence and operational briefings. At the press conference, May revealed American submarines had a high survivability because Japanese depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth, typically 100 feet (because Japanese forces believed U.S. subs did not normally exceed this depth). Various press associations sent this story over their wires, and many newspapers, including one in Honolulu, thoughtlessly published it. Soon enemy depth charges were rearmed to explode at a more effective depth of 250 feet. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, later estimated that May's revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen"

because it over-emphasises May. Moreover, I'd argue IJN doctrine & training were terrible.

I added "There were rarely sufficient escorts for extensive hunts, and it was certain U-boats would be found in the vicinity of convoys." (I'm far from convinced of the value of HK patrols.)

I added "temperature gradients (thermoclines)."

And I'd suggest "* Larger convoys, which allowed more escorts to be allocated to each convoy. " is mistaken. The number of escorts didn't change, as such; what mattered was, the number of escorts in relation to the perimeter to be covered: escorts for 2 convoys of 40 ships, covering 1 of 80, reduced the size of the sector, without increasing the number of escorts. It's based on work by Blackett's OR team. You can find it in van der Vat, Atlantic Campaign. Trekphiler 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Name, rank, & contradiction

The article says, "Fregatten-Leutnant Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft" (a name & date I've seen elsewhere, in Price, I think); Submarine says, "a Serbian pilot named Konjovic" (somebody I never heard of). Who's right? Trekphiler 07:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The incident is recorded in Price (“Aircraft vs Submarines”); the mention at Submarine is unreferenced. I will check the book next time I can get hold of it for the names. But I've re-written the paragraph anyway; see below. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft, WWI

I’ve removed this:
"...with Fregatten-Leutnant Dip. Ing. Walter Zelezny scoring the first submarine kill by aircraft (in L135, a type T1 Lohner flyingboat of the Imperial Austro-Hungarian naval air arm) on 15 September 1916 against the French submarine 'Foucault Q-70'commanded by captain LV Léon Henri Dévin",
As it gives undue weight to a single incident in a general 10 page article. The place for this information would be on the Foucault page (when there is one). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Space craft?

Is the mention of space craft in the leading sentence just vandalism or is somebody just making sure this article stays relevant in 100 years? 152.1.22.149 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither. It's a reference to satelites. However, the only place in the text that discusses satelites is uncited, and says "and it is claimed these might be used". Btw, both this section and the word "space craft" were added by the same user. That user's edits in general seem legitimate, but even a year and a half after they posted this material (and a lot other uncite sections in this article), they are still being warned for not citing their sources. I'ved added {{fact}} tags to the satelite sentence, and removed "space craft" from the Lead as minor and over-reaching. Thanks for catching that! - BillCJ (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've heard of research in the late 1980's and/or early 1990's into using LIDAR from satellites, although it apparently wasn't very successful. There's mention of atmospheric problems with LIDAR at www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/detection.pdf --Bobbozzo (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Satellites can be used to detect the slight increase in water height around a large submarine, e.g., an SSBN, when moving at periscope depth. It depends on the satellite having sensitive enough radar and accurate enough timing circuits to bounce the signal off the sea surface and detect the minute differences in distance to the sea surface between the normal sea height, and the slightly higher area (caused by the bow wave extending upwards and downwards, as well as to the sides) around the submarine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.28 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Subatomic-particle beam weapons

In the section "Modern Warfare" it states that pulsed blue-green lasers and subatomic particle beams are used in modern antisubmarine warfare... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.19.206 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

superman too so what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.31.17 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Patrol planes: their use in ASW and also other uses

The Wikipedia is missing an article on the patrol plane, a rather important topic not only in antisubmarine warfare, but also in other important forms of naval warfare.

There are two approches to correcting this: A. Information on the large two-engine, and often four-engine patrol planes could be added to this article, and then "patrol plane" could be redirected here. B. An article on "patrol plane"s could be added to the Wikipedia.

Patrol planed do not do only antisubmarine warfare. The also do scounting for enemy surface warships and task forces, and for enemy merchant ships - so that attacks can be called in on them by bombers, friendly submarines, and surface warships. Patrol planes also make a large number of weather reports, especially reports of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons. Patrol planes also do search and rescue missions, looking for both sailors from sunk or damaged ships, and aviators from shot down, crashed, or ditched airplanes. Patrol planes also search for icebergs on oceans where those area problem, especially on the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean, and sometimes around Antarctica. Some patrol planes also carry powerful weapons for attacking enemy surface ships, including aerial bombs, air-to-surface missiles such as the Maverick missile, and the Harpoon missile.

The big patrol planes have been both seaplanes and land planes. Prominent seaplanes that did this patrol duty included the Short Sunderland, the PBY Catalina, the Kawanishi H6K "Mavis", the Kawanishi H8K "Emily", the Martin Mariner, and the Martin Mars.
Prominent land planes that did/do this patrol duty, and some included in present-day armed forces, include the B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, PB4Y Privateer, Focke-Wulf 200 Condor, the P2V Neptune, the B-29 Superfortress, the P-3 Orion, the B-52 Stratofortress, and the CP-140 Aurora.

In addition, there are modern, long-range, wheeled planes that are flown from aircraft carriers and which perform the missions of both scout planes and patrol planes. There is only one kind of these which is prominent now: one flown from the carriers of the U.S. Navy, and it has been in service for decades. This is the S-3 Viking plane, and it serves the purposes of antisubmarine warfare, scouting for enemy (and allied) ships, search and rescue, and attacking enemy surface ships.

For these purposes, the S-3 Viking can carry a wide variety of sensors and weapons: sonobuoys, radar, magnetic anomaly detectors, infrared dectectors, homing torpedoes (the Mark 46), bombs/depth charges, and antiship missiles, the Harpoon missile. There are probably others that I don't know about. 98.81.13.169 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Q-ships

This article makes no mention of Q-ships as part of anti-submarine warfare. However, the British employed them in both WWI and WWII with success. Rklawton (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Source for information to expand article

[1]

I happened across this source while working on the P-3 Orion article. It is rather detailed. While I don't have time to help out over here now (perhaps later), I thought this might be useful for anyone working on this article.Aalox (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Submarine pens

I imagine that U boats would have been vulnerable when returning to and leaving a submarine pen. I would have thought it would have been worthwhile for a British submarine to sit on the shallow seabed, listen for the sound of a U boat engine and screw, and then launch an acoustic homing torpedo. Alternatively, if the U boat is leaving the pen, follow it at snorkel depth. DavidJErskine (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Error in article's opening paragraph

In this article's opening paragraph it says: To destroy submarines both the torpedo and mine are used, launched from air, surface and underwater platforms. and I think that the use of mine is wrong. Yes they did use mines, and there were probably a few submarines that were sunk by them, but the main air-dropped weapon was firstly, in WWII, bombs and, later, the depth charge. The (homing) torpedo is much the main weapon of the last 50 years being used by ships and aircraft.

If no one wants to keep the existing quoted material I will change it about mid-May. Lin (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it wrong? The statement is that mines and torpedoes were used to destroy submarines. Which is correct, as you confusingly also note. I would keep mines in the statement but expand to cover what else was used to destroy submarines (I think depth charge is the main omission). But given that it is not specifying a period, or saying that it was a main method of destroying them, the statement is not in anyway inaccurate. I'm struggling to understand the objection to be honest. Benea (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediterranean section deletion?

The section is 2 sentences long, the first sentence doesn't say anything at all that the reader wouldn't already have gleamed by reading the intro. The section also incorrectly mentions midget subs as Italian only but doesn't link to the page on the Decima Flottiglia MAS or any other article about Frogmen operations during the war or their role as both ASW and anti ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.121.60 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-submarine warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410054823/https://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)